Long Telegrams Paper
In a series of correspondences known as the Long Telegrams of 1946 an ambassador of the United States and an ambassador of the Soviet Union state their interpretations of the current international situation back to their governments. Both sides are biased not only from their nationality, but also their individual ideologies. Nevertheless, the Long Telegrams serve as a useful reference for crafting a better understanding of the turbulent Cold War era and the beliefs that spurred the controversy defining it.
To begin, one can look at the Novikov Telegram which depicted his view of the situation present in the United States back to the Soviet Union. From the start of the telegram Novikov made clear that the United States had …show more content…
First, both writers averred that the opposing country was planning to use any method necessary to protect and promote its own welfare. Secondly, an area of significance that needed to be carefully watched was the Mediterranean, as it had both resources and a strategic. Finally, and importantly, both Novikov and Kennan indicated that the government leaders were the issue. In the United States, the introduction of Truman meant the government could not be trusted and international issues were being inflamed. And in the Soviet Union, the government leaders were instigating the paranoia for personal benefit. I find these similarities interesting because they indicate the general population of each country would rather not be engaging in war, but somehow rumors of war are rampant. Furthermore, knowing that the people back in their own countries did not want war, why did both sides deliver such harsh and intimidating telegrams that told of the aggression present in the other country. If Novikov and Kennan wanted to avoid further controversy, why did they write that the conditions in the other country would ultimately lead to combat? I feel that the answer is characteristic of the era, when someone has prior beliefs on a subject they will more easily find support for these assumptions. Additionally, if war was on the horizon would one not rather be prepared over surprised? Therefore, I think that both Novikov and Kennan had presumptions before observing each other’s countries and when writing the telegrams, they would rather instill the idea that a war was on the horizon than let their country fall behind on being prepared. In conclusion, both telegrams were persuasive in their own manner, but I think that Novikov’s presented a more thoroughly rationalized
In a series of correspondences known as the Long Telegrams of 1946 an ambassador of the United States and an ambassador of the Soviet Union state their interpretations of the current international situation back to their governments. Both sides are biased not only from their nationality, but also their individual ideologies. Nevertheless, the Long Telegrams serve as a useful reference for crafting a better understanding of the turbulent Cold War era and the beliefs that spurred the controversy defining it.
To begin, one can look at the Novikov Telegram which depicted his view of the situation present in the United States back to the Soviet Union. From the start of the telegram Novikov made clear that the United States had …show more content…
First, both writers averred that the opposing country was planning to use any method necessary to protect and promote its own welfare. Secondly, an area of significance that needed to be carefully watched was the Mediterranean, as it had both resources and a strategic. Finally, and importantly, both Novikov and Kennan indicated that the government leaders were the issue. In the United States, the introduction of Truman meant the government could not be trusted and international issues were being inflamed. And in the Soviet Union, the government leaders were instigating the paranoia for personal benefit. I find these similarities interesting because they indicate the general population of each country would rather not be engaging in war, but somehow rumors of war are rampant. Furthermore, knowing that the people back in their own countries did not want war, why did both sides deliver such harsh and intimidating telegrams that told of the aggression present in the other country. If Novikov and Kennan wanted to avoid further controversy, why did they write that the conditions in the other country would ultimately lead to combat? I feel that the answer is characteristic of the era, when someone has prior beliefs on a subject they will more easily find support for these assumptions. Additionally, if war was on the horizon would one not rather be prepared over surprised? Therefore, I think that both Novikov and Kennan had presumptions before observing each other’s countries and when writing the telegrams, they would rather instill the idea that a war was on the horizon than let their country fall behind on being prepared. In conclusion, both telegrams were persuasive in their own manner, but I think that Novikov’s presented a more thoroughly rationalized